 Rwy'n am gen i ymddiannebu five yna bys dances meddwl ar gesiwyr George Adam MSP, y Minister for Parliamentary Business. Mae ydy rhaid i'r Minister gweithio i'r Ysgrifennydd Gnutai'r Cymru. Y Minister yw'r gweithio i'l sefyllfa'r Cymru, i'r Rachel Rainer, yr ysgrifennyddau de 고ynataethau feddwl yn y Gweithio Lleidgo oedig i'r ysgrifennydd Goodwill i'r sprth. and legislation unit, so I may welcome you all to the meeting. I can remind you all also not to worry about turning on the microphones during the session as they are controlled by broadcasting, so we could invite the minister to make some opening remarks. Thank you, convener. Good morning, convener and committee members. This is the first opportunity I have had to welcome Oliver Mundell, Carol Mochan to the committee. As previous members of this committee, I know very well what important part of the committee plays and scrutinises all the legislation. We have had a close working relationship since I became Minister for Parliamentary Business and I hope that that continues to be the case. When we met in June, I reflected that the first year of this Parliament has been very challenging. That has continued with the cost of living crisis and the continuing situation in new Ukraine. As I did in June, I would like to record my thanks to the committee, its officials and indeed the Parliament for the constructive way it has worked with the Government over an extremely busy and challenging time. The remainder of year 2 and indeed year 3 will no less be no less challenging, particularly given the measures contained within the UK Government's retained EU law bill. We continue to bring a significant amount of legislation to the Parliament since September. We have had six bills, 96 SSIs, eight LCMs and 11 UK SSIs. The committee will note that there has been a reduction in the number of SSIs that is laid by the Government. There is not a specific reason for that, but I am delighted to note that, in this quarter, no instruments have been reported on serious grounds. As the committee knows, I take the quality of the instruments that we lay very seriously, and it is important that there are as few errors as possible. Government and Parliament officials have been working on a protocol for expedited affirmative instruments following the concerns arising from the use of made affirmative procedure during the pandemic and the committee's inquiry. That work is on-going and is near completion. When we met in June, I committed to undertake a strategic review of the data and information that the Government currently provides to the Parliament. It is worth reminding ourselves of what the Government currently provides. A forward look every week of SSIs to be laid in the following two weeks, weekly updates on UK SSIs and fortnightly updates on LCMs and monthly updates on bills. That is a substantial amount of data that is complemented by regular meetings between officials and, indeed, the meetings that I offer to committee conveners. My officials have been considering carefully the data and the information that we provide to the Parliament and will engage shortly with the committee clerks to seek their input. As ever, it is vital that we work together to ensure that we are providing information and data that is helpful and of value, not only to the committee but to the Parliament as a whole. I look forward to hearing from the committee today. Thank you very much for that minister. You touched upon a few areas that you will be getting questions on. You are correct regarding the number of errors and the instruments that the committee has highlighted that SSIs and errors are generally low, which you will be certainly welcome, but the committee is still identifying some drafting issues. What are you and your team doing to ensure that the quality of the SSIs remains high? We continue with the work that we have done up until now, which has made sure that there are a limited amount of errors made in the first place. However, as I say, we are always willing to engage with everyone else if there is anything that the committee has to offer us and talk to us about. On the whole, most of the drafting has been good and has ensured that we have been able to bring legislation forward in the right way. Anything else that is added, we would be quite happy to look at, but on the whole, it is just a case of making sure that we continue to provide to you and the Parliament with the most accurate SSIs and instruments that we can possibly can. I will give one example of where there were particular issues, and that was the Scottish Child Payment and Solid Revision Regulations 2022, SSI 2022-326. On 23 November, the committee asked the Scottish Government why a further breach of the 28-day rule had occurred in relation to that. The committee sought the Scottish Government's assurance that its quality assurance processes were sufficient to ensure that the Bonnet legislation laid before the Parliament was fit for purpose. The Scottish Government responded that a review of its processes for developing and quality assurance social security regulations would be undertaken to learn lessons and to strengthen the procedure for the future. Can you provide an update on that particular review, please? Yes, the review is on-going and we provide the Parliament with a substantial amount of information, but we are absolutely committed to ensuring that the Parliament receives information in the time that it needs. For us, the review is getting to the stage that we need to engage with the committee more. We have got to a stage where I think that my officials will be doing that in the not-too-distant future, and that will give us some ideas as to how we take that forward. However, the important thing is that we make sure that we have ourself into a place where we can have discussions with our clerks at the committee, my officials, and that we can take that forward. Okay, thank you. I am sure that colleagues from the committee would welcome that further engagement. On the SSI 2022-340, the building Scotland amendment number two regulations 2022, the instrument amended SSI 2022-136 by amending the date in which new mandatory energy environmental standards for buildings and building work are introduced from 1 December 2022 to 1 February 2023. The committee asked the Scottish Government for an explanation for the 28-day breach, given the lane requirements that were complied with the last time the deadline was postponed. The Scottish Government advised that the breach had occurred due to a delay in the last engagement with providers. What processes does the Scottish Government have in place to manage the planning and timescales for delaying planned implementation of legislation, and what is done to ensure that reviews on any delayed implementations are regularly carried out? Well, convener, as a rule, we obviously do not want to be having problems with delayed legislation or 28-day breaches, but on the whole, it can be quite challenging out there for a number of reasons. There may be situations where we do have that problem, and all I can assure the committee is the fact that I, as a minister, ensure that we try and keep everything within the proper way of doing business. On the whole, that does not happen. We are only human. There can be difficulties as well. There are also some difficulties with regard to some of the information that we might receive from other legislative bodies, such as Westminster and the UK Government, which we get to see in detail at the very last minute. On the whole, we do try to ensure that we can get everything to you in a timuous matter time, but on the whole, it can prove quite challenging on the whole. I do not know if I want to bring in Susan at this point to maybe add something to that. There is nothing really I would add about that. I do not already tell about the instrument that the convener has raised in particular. I do not know if Rachel knows a little bit more about that one. We can come back to you on that actual instrument in itself, but on the whole, generally speaking, we tend to try and make sure that we get those things worked out within the correct times. He touched upon there regarding receiving information from others. Is that more common now, or is it just sporadic in terms of receiving information late? It will happen on a regular basis that officials will get information literally if they are lucky 24 hours before a bill is published, and that is if they are lucky. They might get it an hour or so before it as well, or any of the details that they are needing. That automatically sets the gun—files a gun, starting gun—and it makes it difficult for us to try and get ourselves into a place where we can have a robust argument or look at the detail and find how it affects us here as well. It is more difficult. It is made worse because outwith the politics that is a situation in itself, you used to be able to build up a relationship, like the relationship that my officials have with your clerks, or I have with yourself here at the committee. When there is, you have the continued idea of the people that you are dealing with. It is quite simple to do that, but if I use some of the people that I deal with in Westminster over the past year and a bit, I have had about an election side of things. I have had three different ministers that I have had to deal with. Your chances of being able to break down the political barrier and have that working relationship with some in Westminster at a political level becomes more difficult. Sometimes that is where you can solve some of the issues by just having that open working relationship where you say, we are just going to get this job done. We might not agree on the policy issue, but let us try to get the work done. You are very, really able to have these conversations because there has been such a turnover of ministers in Westminster. However, on the whole, from an official point of view, it becomes extremely difficult for them to get to the stage where they can work up a case for whether the Government is for or against anything that is going on and do it in such a robust manner that your committee would expect to be able to scrutinise. I might bring in Susan, and she might be able to hit some of the technical aspects of it. In terms of legislative consent, this has been a particular issue with bills introduced following the Queen's speech last year. Colleagues are often seeing provisions in bills very late in the day, and sometimes not at all. For instance, in the case of the Northern Island protocol bill, colleagues did not see a final bill print or nor were they engaged in the drafting of clauses, so we did not see anything on that until introduction. That makes it really difficult to meet the two-week deadline set in standing orders for us to undertake our own devolution analysis, for a policy analysis, and then to provide advice to our ministers and then to lodge an LCM within the two-week period. That is something that we have raised with UK colleagues, and I know that ministers have also raised with their UK counterparts, but it has been very difficult and very challenging in the way that the two-week period that we are set with in standing orders has been very difficult for us to meet that in the last year. So with that, even during COVID, the worst of the COVID period, that happened at that point because to not have any engagement until the bill was actually published seems quite remarkable, but generally I do not recall that type of thing happening even through the worst of COVID. As the minister, I was not the minister at the time, but I do not recall it either being that stage from literally from the time I have been in post. It has been like this. I do not know if that has been the changes of administration down at Westminster or not or the leadership themselves. I have no idea, but on the side of things, Mary, I think I have said this before to you convener. There are aspects of my job that are very technical, as is this committee, and they are just going down the rules and regulations of how we go about day-to-day business. I have spoken to Westminster equivalents, ministers and said, let's not have a fight unless we have to have one, our jobs have won a process, let's just try and just make the process work. On the whole, when you do have that relationship and you can have that at a political level, you can talk to the minister at that level. However, that has been proven to be difficult over the past year or so because there have been multiple ministers in various portfolios. It becomes difficult for two reasons. One, it becomes difficult for me to have a working relationship with an individual to just say, right, we're not here to fight, we're just here to get the job done, do our job. And two, it becomes difficult for officials at both UK and Scottish levels because then they have, although they may remain the same and have the same working relationships, the person who is in charge, the minister who's making the decisions, may have a different personality and a different idea of how they take things forward. So it becomes difficult for them to engage with them at that stage as well because they don't really know how the minister is going to react to certain things. So it's become more and more difficult and it's a big up becoming a larger problem. Okay, so my final question just in this area. Obviously, when the bill, the Northern Island protocol bill was published, minister, a minute, you will obviously engage with colleagues from all the devolved administrations as well as the UK Government. Did they have a similar experience regarding that particular bill? Yes, they did. And we're particularly working closely with Welsh colleagues as well and with regards to other things, but yeah, with the Northern Island protocol bill, they did have these experiences as well and things have been quite difficult. Okay, okay. Okay, now I've got one final question before I bring in Bill Kidd. You touched upon Ukraine in your opening comments. Now, obviously, any of the instruments that came to this committee, they will have breached the 28-year rule, which is understandable. Are you anticipating any further instruments coming forward regarding Ukraine? Nothing that I can think of to hand at the moment, but I'll just ask my officials to say if there's anything I've forgotten and they can correct me. Not at the moment. Thank you. Bill Kidd. Thank you very much indeed, welcome minister and officials. We're not finished with technicalities because I'm just going to ask you a wee bit more because it's the relationship between this committee and the ministerial side that you cover, which does bring this forward. Just to ask you minister, your officials provide the committee and subject committees also with a helpful weekly update of instruments expected to be laid in the following two weeks. Can you provide an indication of any anticipated volume of SSIs likely to be laid between now and the summer? I was just trying to think off the top of my head, Susan. Do we have any numbers that we know for sure? Excuse me, we can certainly give you a projection with the caveat that, as you know, Mr Kidd, that can change, but we can certainly give you a projection. We have a projection. I think we're thinking, looking at the moment, we think there'll be about 61 SSIs laid between now and summer recess, but that is subject to change and we would expect that to go up a little bit, but we can certainly provide you with that. That would be very helpful. Sorry, Ben Minister. I was going to say the fact that just to give it some, since September there's been 96 SSIs, just to compare and contrast. If you think that 66 sounds like a lot, we're giving you quite a bit of work. That's very helpful, because it gives us an indication of the levels of work that we'll be anticipating over that period, and that's extremely useful. Obviously, it's not something that you can give an exact figure on anyway, but it's just an indication. Following your last session with the committee minister in correspondence with the committee, you committed to undertake a strategic review of data and information with the Scottish Government process that you already provide to the committee. The committee appreciates that this review may be in the early planning stages, but can you provide any update at all on that work? Yeah, we're undertaking the review of information sharing, and while we hope to have progressed it more than what we have at the moment, we're aiming to engage shortly with parliamentary officials with a view to establishing a short-life working group to seek their input into it, so we're at the stage where we will be engaging with parliamentary officials to bring that to the next stage. We probably hope to be a lot further on in what we are, but unfortunately, for various reasons, we've actually got to the stage where we're just a wee bit behind what we should have been. Okay, but you're working on that anyway. Yeah, we are indeed. That's an important aspect. Will this committee consider packages, if we put it that way, of SSIs relating to a specific policy area such as the package of 10 instruments concerning the transfer of functions to the first tier and upper tribunal of Scotland and or reform of non-domestic rate system? Is useful for this committee as well as the relevant subject committees, as you know, to be given as much advance notice as possible of packages of instruments? Do you have any idea of if there are such instruments, sets of instruments in the pipeline? Will you be able to keep us updated on the progress that we can expect on these? I think that Mr Kidd is an answer to that. As a whole, we tried to give you as much information and tried to make sure that you get the detail in as far in advance as possible. Sometimes that can be difficult and there could be all kind of challenges as well, but on the whole, there's nothing that comes to mind at the moment, but if there is something, I'll make sure that the committee gets detail of what they're getting and when they're getting it and how larger a package it turns out to be. Great. Well, as you know, that's very useful for this committee in particular, because we are the first stage frequently for this to go forward. So that would be extremely useful. Thank you very much for that. Thank you. Minister, you'll be aware that a predecessor committee welcomed the Scottish Government's work in meeting almost all of its historic commitments by the end of the last parliamentary session. It's something that the committee certainly wanted to try to progress and have a clean slate for this session, but there is still one outstanding commitment, and that's the Scotland Act 1998 specification of functions and transfer of property, etc. Order 2019, SSI 2019-183. Can you provide the committee with an update on where things are with that, please? I'll ask one of my officials to give you the full update on that, but with regards to this situation of us, there's been a great amount of work done by ourselves, my predecessor, and obviously the officials involved to get this to the stage we're at now, because you will remember that, in 2018, we were not in a good place with regards to these issues. Just to get some idea of where we're at, things are a lot better and we're sitting here with this one. With that one that we're talking about here, I would probably ask Rachel, as it would be, Susan. Just to give us an update on it. Thank you. That's a Scotland Act order, so that means that we need to have another Scotland Act order as a vehicle to correct that, and they are not terribly frequent, but we can go away and ask the lead officials on any update if they think there's a vehicle that will be forthcoming and give you an update on that, but that's the reason that one has not been met thus far. Let's not get caught in negativity, convener. You know we're in a better position than what it was previously in 2018. No, I absolutely agree, because I was on the committee in the last session, and I remember the longest of outstanding commitments, and certainly the committee wanted to have the situation improved greatly, and it certainly is. On this particular order, I'm sure that the colleagues would appreciate if you were to write to the committee with an update on when you have that deal with your colleagues. No problem, we'll do that, convener. Okay, thank you. Okay, Oliver. Thank you, convener, and thank you, minister. I was interested in asking, first of all, about the Scottish Law Commission bills. Obviously, the committee has been scrutinising two of them recently, but in the 2021 programme for government, there was a suggestion that the government wanted to take for the implementation of a number of other SLC reports in this session, and I just wondered if you were able to enlighten the committee on the pipeline and timescale for their introduction, and how the government goes about prioritising those different reports? On the whole, you'll be aware that we've obviously, as a member of this committee, we've got the Moveable Transactions Bill, which came in to force at one point, I was calling the Unmoveable Tractions Bill, because it took us so long. I think I came from a very first committee meeting, and I said, we will be working towards getting this, and there was a delay of about six months. It's a highly technical bill, and it was one that we had to get into a good place in order to make sure that it is sorted. You've obviously got the Trust and Successions Bill, which is coming to yourself as well, so on the whole, we've managed to keep the committee reasonably busy with the Scottish Law Commission stuff, with regards to how we go about taking on the work. Basically, we know that there's a list of stuff that the Law Commission has to do with the technical term. There's a whole list of potential bills there that the Law Commission has got work on, and we'll look at it as and when, what is the priority, and what we need to do as a Government to take that forward. I'll ask Susan if she's got anything to add to that. No, I don't have anything to add to that, Mr Adam. Okay, okay. I guess, just to push you a wee bit harder, do you have a target for this session? I mean, I guess these are usually highly technical bills. They come to this committee because they're not contentious, they're not necessarily easy pieces of legislation, but they're not politically contentious. I guess the kind of frustration we picked up a little bit of, maybe from the SLC, was just that there are a number of well-thought-out suggestions for how to improve law, and we heard it from stakeholders, certainly in terms of the movable transactions, the big difference a piece of legislation like that would make to how they go about their daily business. I know it's easy for them to fall down the Government's priority list, the Parliament's priority list, because there are other things that are maybe politically more exciting. It's just to get a commitment from you that these are seriously being looked at. The committee will be kept busy in the future. They are being seriously looked at, and we are reviewing what ones we would be looking at bringing forward. As you say, Parliament and the people of Scotland's idea of what we're living in, a cost of living crisis, there's only so many bills and so many bits of legislation that I can get in between now and the end of the session. It's not a case that we don't see the Scottish Law Commission's bills as important, it's just that we need to prioritise what we're going to do and still be working towards making sure that the Government's programme is delivered as well. Just to try and put your mind at rest, Mr Mundell, we do continually look at what we could bring forward and we do engage to make sure that we can see what could be relevant in the various aspects of life in Scotland and how we can bring them forward. They're not being forgotten about and they're not going down a big, dark hole somewhere in the Scottish Government. It's something that we're constantly looking at but, again, it comes down to the prioritisation of the Government and how we move forward. We only have so many bills, spots between now and the end of the session. I know that, in year 2, that sounds as if we're wishing a way of life almost, but I've got to look at that as Minister for Parliamentary Business as well. However, they're not being forgotten about. I'm not asking you to do it today, but would you be willing to share with the committee in terms of the reports that are sitting there, which are not necessarily the specific ones, but as in a group of them that you think might be achievable in this Parliament or that you consider to be the top of the priority list within the sessions? I'm happy to make a commitment that we have a look at it and engage with the committee to see where we're at with everything. Just on the SLC bills, I mean, obviously, during the movable transactions we got a bit of kickback from some sort of witnesses and stakeholders saying that they basically were concerned about bits of the bill and they hadn't been asked about it. I mean, it's all there on the parliamentary report that was covered in this stage 1 debate, but less specifically about the movable transactions. It was, again, just to get an assurance from you that where these bills were being brought forward in the future, certainly that the Government was doing its bit to scope out any potential, I guess, or more political risks associated with the bill in terms of them generating public interest. On the whole, I don't know the detail of, obviously, Tom Arthur would be the minister to know about the detail of the movable transactions bill itself, but on the whole, I would say, just generally, we tend to try to engage with as many stakeholders as possible with any bill to ensure that we can get, because the last thing that we need as a Government is for a stakeholder to come to us further down the line when we're trying to draft legislation telling us, well, this actually affects us in such a way that it makes things really difficult for us, or that doesn't work the way you want it to work. So, yes, it's only right that a Government should engage with all the stakeholders and make sure that they get the information that they need. If there was an issue with that, I'm quite happy to talk to Mr Arthur to see what that detail was and just take it from there. I mean, I think that to be fair to Mr Arthur, he's been very helpful and is engaged proactively with the committee in terms of that individual example. It just was to get that assurance moving forward on those SLC bills that the Government was doing its bit. You have to make sure that stakeholders are scared off, but I'm getting that reassurance from you. What is the Government's intention to ensure that we, as I say, from the very practical point that it actually is better for us to be able to be in that position and know where we stand? So, just on that particular issue, minister, so I've had the movable transactions where some of the devil touched upon some of the issues. In the previous session, there was a prescription Scotland Act 2018, where, likewise, there were some issues that came up. It certainly seemed to be that because there was such a length of time from the SLC undertaking the work before bills were then brought into the Parliament, the Government considered, before certainly going forward, if any future SLC bills, if there is something that's been sitting there for, for Tom's sake, five years. Would the Government consider then potentially before the bill then comes into the Parliament to do some further consultation with stakeholders so that it could potentially then draw these issues out? I think it's fair to say, and this came up certainly in evidence on the movable transactions, and I was in the committee at the time of the prescription, I think, with the subject matters and subject areas. I think it's fair to say that probably not everyone fully engaged or organisations engaged because they didn't think it was really relevant for them. Whereas if the Government were to do some further consultation before it then came into here, it might actually then draw out some of those issues and then help them to the Parliamentary process as we go forward. I don't want to make a commitment here today, but I'm quite happy to take that away and have a look at it and possibly write to the committee further down the line with regards to what findings we have, whether that's possible or if not why we can't do it. I'll just give me some time to have a look at that. That's helpful. I was going to move on and just touch briefly on the national care service bill, which the committee has just reported to the committee on, but I don't want to get into the politics or the sort of spat on the bill itself. What I was more interested in was hearing the Government's thinking on the concept of bringing framework bills to Parliament that contain a large number of delegated powers. In this specific example, whether, as a former member of the committee, you can understand the challenge that the committee is faced with when a delegated powers memorandum isn't able to specifically say how delegated powers would be used and whether you recognise that challenge. No, I can see how certain members of the committee would look at a framework bill and think that, but on this occasion, the national care service is about co-design. It's been done. This is a new way of trying to think how we design policy and how we design a process in a system. For the national care service, it gives us that flexibility that Government needs in order to do that, so that we can get that stakeholder, exactly what the convener and yourself are talking about, with the moveable transactions bill, so that we can actually have that level of stakeholder involvement and those who use the systems and processes and get their expertise at that level. However, I can understand from a member of this committee where it becomes that I can understand how some would cynically think it's a power grab by the Government to do what they want when they want, but that's not what this is about. It's never about that anyway, but this is about us actually ensuring that we can give a national care service that all the stakeholders have had any, all kinds of engagement and have helped us co-design and ensure that that is happened. With regards to your report, I've not had a chance to have a look at the report myself. I'm quite sure that Kevin Stewart, the minister, will probably have a look at that and probably be in touch. He's already spoken to this committee in the past and said that, again, he's emphasised how important it is that he wants to work with himself to make sure that he can make this bill and this national care service all it possibly can be. I guess that following on from that, as Minister for Parliamentary Business, it's just whether you feel framework bills that rely heavily on secondary legislation give Parliament as a whole enough opportunity to be part of a co-design process. Then, specifically, why that prevents more detail being put—we didn't really understand why that prevents more detail being put on the face of primary legislation—we didn't really get to the bottom of that. Basically, on framework bills and what type of bill that we use to take a bill forward, there's no exact science that will be done in such a way that, nine times out of ten, it will be the traditional method that we do for putting a bill forward. On this occasion, I think that this is more a radical, a new way of looking at it and trying to—because it is such an important—you're talking about a national care service that will touch so many people's lives. I think that the important thing for us is to ensure that we've got that level of engagement. This way, it's a different way of thinking. It's a different way of being able to look at how we design, because the scrutiny will come from yourselves through the process as it goes forward. I think that there's about—last I heard—about seven committees feeding into the national care service bill. Once we get to that stage where we're pushing that forward, we'll be pretty confident that we've got something that's robust enough and we'll be able to deliver what people want. For us, that's the most important thing on this. With regard to what type of bill we use going forward, it will depend. I think that I'll be coming forward with hundreds of framework bills as of today. No, but it will depend on what the circumstances are and how we can deliver the bill and make it do what it really needs to do. At the end of the day, it's not about us, it's about delivering for people out there in the real world. That's a point of consensus. I'll share the sentiment on that. On the technical aspect, that really is my last question. We were—or some members of the committee certainly were concerned that going through secondary legislation, there is a lower threshold for parliamentary scrutiny. You would accept that in secondary legislation. I think—I mean, a member of this committee—there's a danger within a busy Parliament that secondary legislation gets less scrutiny than primary legislation. I wouldn't believe so. I haven't been a member of this committee. I don't see anything that disappears at him. I think that everything gets looked at and debated. I really do believe that for this specific process, this is the best way forward for us. However, with regard to your committee report, I'll have a look at the committee report. As I say, I've not had a chance, because I think that it was published on Thursday or Friday last week, so I've not had a chance to read it yet. However, I will have a look at it and I'll take it from there as well. I wonder what factors influence the Scottish Government's approach to delegated powers conferred on UK ministers in devolved areas? What factors influence your approach to delegated powers conferred on UK ministers in devolved areas? I'll bring in Susan, just to answer that one. Okay, this is on legislative consent, Mr Balford. If a bill gives powers to UK ministers to legislate in devolved areas, our ask would always be of the UK Government to have a consent lock so that the consent of Scottish ministers would be required or to have concurrent powers so that we can do our own SSI in that area. There's a discussion between policy officials and there would be a discussion between ministers on that. I think it's fair to say that of late, in the majority of cases, but not all, where we've asked for these things, the UK Government have not agreed, but that's where we provide advice to ministers. Ministers take up a policy view and there is a discussion between our ministers and UK ministers on that and also at an official level. Okay, I suppose that the following on for that then is what factors influence the Scottish ministers in reaching their view on whether power in the UK bill for UK ministers to legislate in devolved areas should be subject to a statutory requirement for Scottish ministers consent. Is there a different thinking around that or is it the same thinking that we've had previously? It's the same thinking and this goes back to what I said earlier on, Mr Balford, about being able to have that working relationship with colleagues in Westminster. It becomes difficult when you can't pick up a phone and say that something as simple as we're having difficulty with insert name of bill or what are you trying to achieve with insert name of bill so that we can understand it. Then we end up with a situation where it's just purely emails and letters going backwards and forwards to one another and that kind of makes things a bit difficult for us to get to a stage. When we are making the decision, it's how it affects the Scottish Government and the Scottish Government nine times out of ten will always want to put an SSI down to say that it's the Scottish Government or the Scottish Parliament that's legislating on the issue. I think that that's only right that we would look towards that idea because we don't want to live in a place regardless of who is the political party in Government of Scotland, a place where the UK Government is legislating too much on devolved matters. Okay again and I suppose again just to kind of follow that one through, where powers for UK ministers in devolved areas fought out with the scope of a statutory instrument protocol 2, how well the Scottish Government facilitates scrutiny of the exercise of those powers in advance of those powers being exercised. There is a review of the protocol going on between officials, Scottish Government and Parliament and that is one of the issues that is being considered as to what is appropriate and how best to make things work, including how, but that also does involve working with the UK Government which, as the Minister has said, can be challenging so trying to find a system which gets appropriate buy-in is something that we are looking at. And do we have a date of when that protocol discussions, I mean are we at the start of a process, are we halfway through, are we drawing towards a close of it? I think we'd say we're at the start of the process. And in your kind of thinking, how long do you think that would take? It really depends on the, I'm trying not to be political. No, no, no, that's right. That's right if it was from your intent. So obviously you've got two parties that actually go through this, so I appreciate that. But from your perspective, from your experience previously, how long would you think that would take? I mean are we talking you know months, weeks, years? I'd be unable to give you any idea whether it'd be next week, next year or two years down the line because basically that's the way things are currently and the problem would be to commit myself at this stage. I'm quite happy to kind of look at it and try and see but any, it'd be very difficult for me to give you any kind of timescale because of the way things are at the moment with the relationships. I mean perhaps then would it be possible for you to write to committee say after the summer recess to give us an update of where we are on that? Yes, I could say after the summer recess, which could mean after the summer recess and the wind following that as well. I'm always an upswished, Mr Adam, as you know me. Thank you, convener. Thank you. Good morning, minister. I wanted to ask just a few questions about the retained EU law bill and really the first question is what impact do you think this bill will have on the Scottish Government and the wider Scottish Parliament? Carol, it's a difficult one for us to say here now because trying to unpick EU laws that have been part of our legislative structure since 1972 is quite a difficult task and it's one that officials both in Westminster and in the Scottish Government are looking at and we're trying to find a way more working, more constantly having ways to see how it will affect us and what way we will actually be able to deal with it. At this stage it would be difficult for me to say how the impact, there's either a scale between finding a way to make it work and being able to to make it work in such a way that we can still have full scrutiny and still get through the process or finding a balance where we don't end up just everything we're doing is EU retained law. Thank you. Do you have any specific steps that you're taking to identify what will be devolved to us? Yes, officials are in constant communication with their counterparts down at UK Government level and they are trying to find out a way that will be. Again, if you asked me how that would be very difficult, 1972 I was three years old so I don't look at Ms Morgan but that wasn't yesterday and the situation that we have is that that's going to be time consuming and that's going to be difficult but this is one situation where officials on both sides are aware of the task and are trying to find solutions to try and find a way to make sure that we up here find a way to retain EU law and whereas in UK Government they've got other ideas. Carol, are you also engaging with officials and relevant Government ministers and other devolved Administrations on that particular point as well? Yes, we are. I'm just laughing because I had to ask who my counterpart was a couple of weeks ago. Yes and no, we have been ensuring that we can get that so that because we know how serious the situation is and we have been trying to get into a position where everyone is working together to try and although there is a difference in policy between ourselves we're trying to make this work. Just a last question, just around dates and timing. Do you have any anticipated dates that subordinate legislation under the bill might come to us and do you think there will be any peak times that scrutiny will be at a high level? It's a hard one to come with that kind of level of detail for you but probably my best bet would be that we'll try and work with the committee in particular to make sure that you're aware of anything that's coming through but for me to commit myself at this stage would be difficult and I'd be guessing it would be a case of pinning the tail on the donkey to try and kind of work out when that date would be but as I say as soon as we have further information quite happy to share with the convener. Thank you. Any other questions for the minister? Okay. Minister and team, thank you very much for your time this morning. It's also, they're having a few action points that you will come back to committee on and if there is anything that the committee would like to write you on afterwards then we'll certainly do that. Okay. So thank you once again to yourself and the officials and with that I will close the session. Thank you. My private, sorry.